DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a final rejection in response to claim amendments filed on 06/19/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11-13 are newly added. Thus claims 1-13 are pending and are examined herein.
Priority
The application has a provisional application #63/756,360 filed on 02/10/2025. The claims have the effective filing date of 02/10/2025.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-13: A method for automated digital account change implemented using a computing device, comprising:
Claims 1-13 recite a method which falls under the potentially eligible subject matter category “process.” Therefore, all of the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible subject matter category, therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claim 1 is marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: A computer implemented method for performing estate settlements, comprising:
providing a platform system having a database;
establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network;
providing options for receiving asset information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system;
providing options for receiving a personal representative information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system;
storing the provided client asset information and personal representative information on the platform system database;
determining, via the platform provider, a death of the account owner; and
providing read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the category “certain methods of organizing human activity.” More specifically, the present claims fall under the sub-grouping “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). In the present case, the limitations in bold fall within at least “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” as the limitations recite social activities and following rules or instructions which facilitate interactions between people. These limitations are also recited with such generality that they encompass any manner of arriving at the intended outcome, including instructions to an individual to perform the functions. The subsequent limitations in bold, given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification encompass the steps of establishing communications between an account owner and a platform, receiving asset information, receiving a personal representative information, storing the information, determining the death of the account owner, and providing access to the client asset information to the personal representative.
These fall directly within “managing personal behavior” as it merely recites interactions with an individual which manage their personal behavior by determining a set of tasks for an individual to complete. In view of the specification the problem being addressed is, “[0007] Accordingly, it would be beneficial to provide a system and method for performing estate settlements that can aid executors, trustees and other individuals in handling the estate settlement process of a person so as to overcome the drawbacks noted above which leads to lost assets.” Since this problem is geared towards the abstract idea of managing interactions between individuals or relationships between people, in the form of estate planning, it is at least a recitation of an abstract idea. The “platform system” is interpreted to still be part of the abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation it is not necessarily limited to technological implementation (it is not limited to computer applications), it can encapsulate any managing system that facilitates the actions. Similarly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of network in view of the specification is not limited to computer networks alone, as a “network of people,” or “social network,” falls within the scope as well. However, even if it was limited to computer applications, the fact that the interactions are potentially between an individual and a computer does not preclude the claim from reciting “certain methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”
Furthermore, even when considering the amendments of “providing read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database” this is still part of the abstract idea because it is claimed in a manner, such that when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is merely a rule-based operation, which prevents a user from making changes to the personal information. Merely providing permission-based features, especially at this level of breadth, is no more than “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people.”
Therefore, since the limitations are not meaningfully different from other ideas found to be abstract in examples from MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the claims at least recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
- computer implemented method
- a user interface device
The additional elements listed above, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea steps of “establishing communications between an account owner and a platform, receiving asset information, receiving a personal representative information, storing the information, determining the death of the account owner, and providing access to the client asset information to the personal representative” are instructed to be performed on generic computing components such as a computer, or user interface device. In line with paragraphs [0024] and [0025] of the instant specification, these components are no more than generic computing components. Furthermore, while the elements, “platform system,” “platform provider,” and “network” are broad enough to be part of the abstract idea, even if they were additional elements, they are still no more than using computers or other devices in their ordinary capacity to perform economic tasks. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, none of the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
- computer implemented method
- a user interface device
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computing components such as a computer or user interface device to perform the abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, nothing in the limitations meaningfully limit the claim to be significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
Claim 2 recites more of the same abstract idea because it is merely adding the step of “performing an identity verification of the account owner” to the establishing communications steps. In the manner it is claimed this is still part of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people because it merely claims any verification of identity (such as asking an individual to show their identification). Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 2 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 add the steps of generating an asset presentation screen to receive information, and claim 4 defines the fields being prompted to the user. This is more of the same abstract idea because it merely is collecting data, in order to perform the abstract idea. The additional element of the data being collected by “an asset presentation screen,” is still an “apply it” level element as it is no more than using a device in its ordinary capacity to perform an economic task (a screen to display data and input information). Even when analyzed individually or in an ordered combination with the existing additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 3 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 5 & 6 are merely collecting more information from the account owner which is a data collection step in line with performing the abstract idea, whether it is collecting a “last will and testament,” or “financial obligation” this information still falls within the scope of “certain methods of organizing human activity” at least under “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships.” Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 5 and 6 are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 7 and 8 add the additional steps of monitoring government records of recently deceased persons, particular a death master filed published by the United States Social Security Office. This is still more of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people because it is merely a collection of death information regarding a person, to enable performing the abstract idea. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claims 7 and 8 are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 adds the additional step of sending a death confirmation request to the user interface device, however, sending a death confirmation request is more of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” because it merely instructs a user to perform an action. The additional element “user interface device,” is repeated and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 9 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 merely adds the step of storing the client asset information on the database for at least one year after the death of the account owner, however, this is merely claimed as a set of instructions that determine the duration of how long the information is stored. The abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” is still performed in the claim it depends upon and this step merely requires information to be maintained. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claim 10 is still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 11-13 merely further limit the abstract idea by adding more rule-based steps in order to verify the death of the account owner. For example, claim 11 adds the step of locking the account upon determining that the account owner is listed in the death master file, and sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner with a link to prove they are not deceased. This is merely a management of interactions between people, and thus falls squarely within “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Similarly, claim 12 requires sending a notification to a personal representative upon a lack of response within a predetermined timeframe, and claim 13 requires the submission of a death certificate and identity verification process, all of which are still management of personal behavior or interactions between people. Furthermore, there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the limitations in ordered combination with the previous additional elements, they are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose computer and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing meaningfully limits the abstract idea to be significantly more therefore, claims 11-13 are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Watt Lagnese et al. (US 10949937 B1) hereinafter Watt Lagnese.
Regarding Claim 1:
Foote teaches:
-A computer implemented method for performing estate settlements, comprising: (Foote [Col. 1 Lines 60-64] A estate planning and beneficiary management system according to an embodiment includes a system controller which may prompt and receive from a user information which may be necessary to create and estate planning model. [Col. 2 Lines 3-8] The information may be organized into different modules in the suites, and stored in databases on a system platform. The platform may include other modules, systems, and engines. A system controller controls information and instructions to the modules, systems, and engines from the databases and other memories. [Col. 13 Lines 29-33] Various illustrative logical blocks, modules, components, circuits, and algorithm operations described in connection with the aspects described herein may be implemented as electronic hardware, computer software, or combinations of both.)
- providing a platform system having a database; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 17-22] The website may be generated by a system controller 107 which also manages the other modules and databases in the system platform. The system controller may communication with entities outside of the system platform via the network 106. The controller may write to and read from the various databases and memories.)
- establishing communication between a user interface device of an account owner and the platform system over a network; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 12-16]A user 102 who wants to use the system 100 may communicate with a system platform 104 via a network 106. The user 102 may access a website associated with the system, and explore the various services, FAQs, company information, etc., provided by the site. [Col. 3 Lines 26-29] FIGS. 2A and 2B show a user sign-up operation 200 according to an embodiment. The user 102 may subscribe to or purchase services offered by the system platform 104. [Col. 4 Lines 56-60] The user may store PINs, credit card numbers, online banking credentials, etc., in the vault's password manager, and access it securely from anywhere on a computer or mobile device. This information is stored in a centralized vault for the user's account.) Any entry of information by the user in Foote is done between the user interface device such as a mobile phone or computer, and is sent to the system platform.
- providing options for receiving asset information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; (Foote [Col. 4 Lines 20-23] A digital inheritance module 322 may prompt the user for information regarding digital assets, for example, NFT, cryptocurrency, and blockchain. [Col. 5 Lines 41-43] An asset aggregation module 346 may link assets and liabilities for personal and business accounts and provide instructions for asset transfers [Col. 5 Lines 56-62] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution. This may be used to guide beneficiaries, providing a clear road map for access as provided and instructed by user.)
- providing options for receiving a personal representative information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 32-40] Once membership in the system is established, various web pages may be provided to the user to collect information necessary to prepare an estate planning model for the user. This may include a page requesting contact information and permission, or access, levels for trusted parties (block 204), for example, potential beneficiary(-ies) 110, trustee(s) 112, executor 114, and attorney(s) 116. This information may be stored at and utilized by a permissions module 118 at the system platform.)
- storing the provided client asset information and personal representative information on the platform system database; (Foote [Col. 3 Lines 28-30] The user may enter personal and payment information, which is stored in a user payment database 108 at the system platform (block 202). [Col. 5 Lines 35-37] A subscription manager 342 may be used to record an inventory of subscriptions and access information so beneficiaries or trusted contacts can manage subscription assignments as outlined in legal directives. [Col. 3 Lines 36-40]This may include a page requesting contact information and permission, or access, levels for trusted parties (block 204), for example, potential beneficiary(-ies) 110, trustee(s) 112, executor 114, and attorney(s) 116. This information may be stored at and utilized by a permissions module 118 at the system platform. [Col. 5 Lines 56-59] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution.)
- determining, via the platform provider, a death of the account owner; and (Foote [Col. 2 Lines 32-39] The system may monitor for a triggering event, such as death or incapacitation, and once a triggering event is detected and verified, message the beneficiaries and trusted contacts. [Col. 8 Lines 55-59] The system platform may monitor for a triggering event, such as death or incapacitation (block 216). For example, the distribution process may be triggered automatically once the user doesn't respond to a scheduled check-in confirming they are still alive and well. [Col. 10 Lines 16-25] If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830). (66) If the notifier does not detect such an indication, the testator may be marked as “deceased” in the system (block 832) and the will executed and beneficiaries notified (block 834).)
- providing access to the client asset information to the personal representative. (Foote [Col. 13 Lines 5-7] In addition, the password manager enables trusted contacts access to the user's credentials for particular passwords in case of a triggering event. [Col. 8 Lines 11-26] In an embodiment, the system may include a communication engine 134 (FIG. 1), which may be in communication with the various outside world platforms. Information for these platforms, including exchanges 702, social platforms 704, and subscription services 706, may be provided by the user and stored in databases in the various suites. These platforms 119 may include for example, platforms such as Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. The communication engine 134 may deal with the relevant resources in these platforms and provide all the required documents and detailed will directives to verify the event of death and the user's wishes laid out in the user's will surrounding around these platforms, including access by any beneficiaries that they had assigned.)
However, Foote fails to teach or suggest:
- providing read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database.
Alternatively, Watt Lagnese teaches:
- providing read-only access to the client asset information to the personal representative, wherein the read-only access prevents the personal representative from making changes to the client asset information and personal representative information stored on the platform system database. (Watt Lagnese [Col. 13 Line 66 – Col. 14 Line 22] Access authorization unit 204 may manage and compartmentalize the levels and areas of access for team members. Administrators may control which team members may access which information to comply with privacy and security regulations or policies. For example, the tangible personal property team 112 may have no need to know details of a client's tax status. Access authorization unit 204 may authorize a TPP team 112 member to view certain items on the ETT 116 checklist, but prevent the TPP team 112 member from seeing details or documents associated with the ETT 116 checklist. In some examples, Access authorization unit 204 may manage access for a user of ERS 100A based on the user's business need to know the estate services business. (50) Access authorization unit 204 may be configured to allow a team member of one of the estate settlement services teams to modify one of the task checklists. For example, a TPP team 112 member from Virginia may be authorized to modify a TPP team 112 checklist item for, “inventory TPP items in Virginia.” Access authorization unit 204 may allow the same TPP 112 team member to view checklists for other teams, but prevent the same TPP 112 team member from modifying items on the other checklists, e.g., the ESLT 110 checklist. [Col. 21 Lines 13-22] Computing device 220, via access authorization unit 204, may authorize at least one team member of each of the plurality of estate settlement services teams to access the estate account for the decedent (92). The authorized team member may have access to modify the checklist for a particular team but only be able to view the status of the checklists of other estate reconciliation teams. The authorized team member may have access to add documents, comments, and send and receive messages associated with the decedent's account.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding the teachings of Watt Lagnese particularly, the feature of providing only read-only access to certain personal representatives. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add this feature to Foote as it would increase the privacy and security of the platform. (Watt Lagnese [Col. 2 Lines 19-25] The system may provide updated status and information across teams without violating privacy or security regulations, as may be the case with email, text messages, or voice messages. In addition, the system may provide a centralized repository for information, thus avoiding repeated queries for the same information and documents to the decedent's representative.)
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
-Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- wherein said establishing communication includes performing an identity verification of the account owner. (Foote [Col. 9 Lines 17-33] In an embodiment, the digital executor may access the system and initiate a digital asset transfer process for the deceased user (testator). The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc. The required documents may also include proof of identification for the digital executor, which may be a person or persons, such as valid government-issued photo identification of the person(s) and a letter signed by the named digital executor or named executor in the probate documents providing instructions to initiate the digital asset transfer process. [Col. 12 Lines 35-40] The user may then enter the user identification and password for the selected platform (block 1024). The system may then encrypt the user's credentials, e.g., user identification and password, via ECIES encryption, using the subscriber's private and public key (block 1026) and store the encrypted credentials on the blockchain (block 1028).)
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
-Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- wherein said providing options for receiving asset information includes: generating, via the platform provider, an asset presentation screen configured to receive information from the user interface device. (Foote [Col. 5 Lines 56-62] With the information entered during the sign up operation 200, the information needed to identify and access the user's physical and non-physical assets may be stored centrally at the system for future review, updating, and eventually, distribution. This may be used to guide beneficiaries, providing a clear road map for access as provided and instructed by user. [Col. 12 Lines 14-23] The user may select the user-side password manager option in their system dashboard/website GUI (block 1002). The may select an “Add Account” option (block 1004). The system may offer previously added or popular platforms (e.g., Facebook, Gmail, etc.) (block 1006). If the platform desired by the user is not displayed, the user may enter the URL/web address for a login page of a third party platform (block 1008). The user may then select a “Save” option to add the third party platform to their account (block 1010), and the system will add the third party platform to the user's account (block 1012). If the desired platform is displayed, the user may select the desired platform to be shared (block 1014). The user may then select trusted contact(s) linked to their account for sharing (block 1016).)
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 3:
-Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- wherein the asset presentation screen includes at least one of an asset title input field, an asset location or account number field, an asset description field, and an asset beneficiary field. (Foote [Col. 5 Lines 35-43] A subscription manager 342 may be used to record an inventory of subscriptions and access information so beneficiaries or trusted contacts can manage subscription assignments as outlined in legal directives. A financial reports module 344 may provide a user with financial snapshot of net worth and provide a summary of current financial affairs. An asset aggregation module 346 may link assets and liabilities for personal and business accounts and provide instructions for asset transfers. [Col. 5 Line 63 – Col. 6 Line 7] For physical assets, such as jewelry, art, automobiles, collectibles, etc., this information may include the physical location of the asset and, in certain cases, the physical location of a proof of ownership, such as a certificate of title for an automobile. (35) For financial instruments and financial products such stocks, bonds, life insurance policies, bank accounts, loans, mortgages, etc., this information may include the location of documents, and for those with an online presence, website addresses, passwords, login ids, and secondary verification information, e.g., challenge questions, for accessing the documents.) Foote Col. 5 Lines 35-43 teaches the asset beneficiary field. Col. 5 Lines 63- Col. 6 Line 7 teaches the certificate of title for an automobile (asset title input field), physical location of the asset (asset location). Therefore, at least one of the list is taught.
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
-Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- further comprising: providing options for receiving a last will and testament will of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system. (Foote [Col. 4 Lines 15-17] A will creation module 318 may prompt the user for information which may be used to create a last will and testament. [Col. 4 Lines 46-48] A digital legacy vault 336 may provide secure and encrypted file storage for legal documents, for example, contracts, agreements, will, [Col. 9 Lines 19-27] The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc.)
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
-Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- further comprising: providing options for receiving financial obligation information of the account owner from the user interface device to the platform system; and (Foote [Col. 6 Lines 1-7] (35) For financial instruments and financial products such stocks, bonds, life insurance policies, bank accounts, loans, mortgages, etc., this information may include the location of documents, and for those with an online presence, website addresses, passwords, login ids, and secondary verification information, e.g., challenge questions, for accessing the documents. [Col. 5 Lines 41-43] An asset aggregation module 346 may link assets and liabilities for personal and business accounts and provide instructions for asset transfers.) Liabilities, loans, and mortgages fall within the scope of “receiving financial obligation from the account owner.”
- storing the received financial obligation information within the database. (Foote [Col. 5 Lines 31-34] The system website may prompt the user to enter information for modules of a financial suite 340 (block 212), which may be stored in a financial database 130 in the system platform.)
Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
-Furthermore, Foote teaches:
--prior to providing the access to the personal representative, requiring the personal representative to submit a death certification of the account owner and to undergo an identity verification process.(Foote [Col. 9 Lines 9-33] In an embodiment, the system may follow a number of protocols to carry out post-death transfers of digital and crypto assets. Referring back to FIG. 2, the triggering event may be reported by an outside party, such as the digital executor. After the triggering event is identified (block 216), the system may perform an after life protocol 800, shown in FIG. 8, prior to executing the transactions as provided for in the smart contracts (block 222). (58) In an embodiment, the digital executor may access the system and initiate a digital asset transfer process for the deceased user (testator). The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc. The required documents may also include proof of identification for the digital executor, which may be a person or persons, such as valid government-issued photo identification of the person(s) and a letter signed by the named digital executor or named executor in the probate documents providing instructions to initiate the digital asset transfer process.)
However, Foote fails to teach:
- that the access is “read only”
Alternatively, Watt Lagnese teaches: -providing read-only access to the personal representative(Watt Lagnese [Col. 13 Line 66 – Col. 14 Line 22] Access authorization unit 204 may manage and compartmentalize the levels and areas of access for team members. Administrators may control which team members may access which information to comply with privacy and security regulations or policies. For example, the tangible personal property team 112 may have no need to know details of a client's tax status. Access authorization unit 204 may authorize a TPP team 112 member to view certain items on the ETT 116 checklist, but prevent the TPP team 112 member from seeing details or documents associated with the ETT 116 checklist. In some examples, Access authorization unit 204 may manage access for a user of ERS 100A based on the user's business need to know the estate services business. (50) Access authorization unit 204 may be configured to allow a team member of one of the estate settlement services teams to modify one of the task checklists. For example, a TPP team 112 member from Virginia may be authorized to modify a TPP team 112 checklist item for, “inventory TPP items in Virginia.” Access authorization unit 204 may allow the same TPP 112 team member to view checklists for other teams, but prevent the same TPP 112 team member from modifying items on the other checklists, e.g., the ESLT 110 checklist. [Col. 21 Lines 13-22] Computing device 220, via access authorization unit 204, may authorize at least one team member of each of the plurality of estate settlement services teams to access the estate account for the decedent (92). The authorized team member may have access to modify the checklist for a particular team but only be able to view the status of the checklists of other estate reconciliation teams. The authorized team member may have access to add documents, comments, and send and receive messages associated with the decedent's account.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding the teachings of Watt Lagnese particularly, the feature of providing only read-only access to certain personal representatives. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add this feature to Foote as it would increase the privacy and security of the platform. (Watt Lagnese [Col. 2 Lines 19-25] The system may provide updated status and information across teams without violating privacy or security regulations, as may be the case with email, text messages, or voice messages. In addition, the system may provide a centralized repository for information, thus avoiding repeated queries for the same information and documents to the decedent's representative.)
Claims 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Watt Lagnese et al. (US 10949937 B1) hereinafter Watt Lagnese, further in view Gujral et al. (US 20140279450 A1) hereinafter Gujral.
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
However, neither Foote nor Watt Lagnese teach or suggest:
- monitoring, via the platform system, government records containing names of recently deceased persons.
Alternatively, Gujral discloses a secure digital repository for decedent, stores the documents securely, and upon detecting a death disburses the documents to a person inheriting them. Gujral teaches
- monitoring, via the platform system, government records containing names of recently deceased persons. (Gujral [0044] In addition to passively accepting data such as the passage of time or the arrival of a certain kind of document or message, under some embodiments of the method FIG. 1 the system can also monitor data on third-party sites to check for data matching the event pattern 128. For instance, if the event the system seeks to detect is the customer's death, the system could periodically check 128 the Social-Security Administration death master file. A listing of the customer's death on that file could be interpreted as matching the profile of a death event, triggering an attempt to contact another person or entity to confirm that death has occurred.) The “Social-Security Administration death master file” satisfies the limitation because it falls within the scope of government records containing names of recently deceased persons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding Gujral’s use of the death master file as a source to verify that the death has occurred. By substituting Foote’s use death determination technique’s with Gujral’s techniques one would have arrived at the predictable outcome of the claimed limitations at hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the social security death master file because it is a reliable way to legally verify the customer’s death. (Gujral [0044])
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teach or suggest The method of claim 1:
However, neither Foote nor Watt Lagnese teach or suggest:
- monitoring, via the platform system, a death master file published by the United States Social Security Office.
Alternatively, Gujral teaches:
- monitoring, via the platform system, a death master file published by the United States Social Security Office. (Gujral [0044] In addition to passively accepting data such as the passage of time or the arrival of a certain kind of document or message, under some embodiments of the method FIG. 1 the system can also monitor data on third-party sites to check for data matching the event pattern 128. For instance, if the event the system seeks to detect is the customer's death, the system could periodically check 128 the Social-Security Administration death master file. A listing of the customer's death on that file could be interpreted as matching the profile of a death event, triggering an attempt to contact another person or entity to confirm that death has occurred.) The “Social-Security Administration death master file” satisfies the limitation because it falls within the scope of government records containing names of recently deceased persons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding Gujral’s use of the death master file as a source to verify that the death has occurred. By substituting Foote’s use death determination technique’s with Gujral’s techniques one would have arrived at the predictable outcome of the claimed limitations at hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the social security death master file because it is a reliable way to legally verify the customer’s death. (Gujral [0044])
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Foote, Watt Lagnese, and Gujral teach or suggest The method of claim 8:
Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- sending a death confirmation request to the user interface device. (Foote [Col. 9 Lines 13-33] After the triggering event is identified (block 216), the system may perform an after life protocol 800, shown in FIG. 8, prior to executing the transactions as provided for in the smart contracts (block 222). (58) In an embodiment, the digital executor may access the system and initiate a digital asset transfer process for the deceased user (testator). The digital executor may be prompted to enter necessary information and upload required documents (block 802). Required documentation, and processes, may differ depending on the user's region, residence, and individual situation. The required documents may include, for example, a death certificate, the testator's last will and testament, and/or probate documents (for example, probate, letters testamentary, letters of administration, affidavit for collection, small estate affidavit, etc. The required documents may also include proof of identification for the digital executor, which may be a person or persons, such as valid government-issued photo identification of the person(s) and a letter signed by the named digital executor or named executor in the probate documents providing instructions to initiate the digital asset transfer process. [Col. 10 Lines 4-9] In an embodiment, to avoid the possibility of fraud or error in the determination that the testator is in fact deceased, the system may initiate a “life notifier” to confirm the death of the testator (block 828). In an embodiment, the notifier may be run on, for example, a serverless platform such as AWS lambda, Google Cloud, etc.)
Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Foote, Watt Lagnese, and Gujral teach or suggest The method of claim 8:
Furthermore, Foote teaches:
- sending a verification request to the user interface device of the account owner, (Foote [Col. 10 Lines 4-9] In an embodiment, to avoid the possibility of fraud or error in the determination that the testator is in fact deceased, the system may initiate a “life notifier” to confirm the death of the testator (block 828). In an embodiment, the notifier may be run on, for example, a serverless platform such as AWS lambda, Google Cloud, etc.)
- wherein the verification request includes a link for the account owner to response to provide they are not deceased.(Foote [Col. 8 Lines 55-59] The system platform may monitor for a triggering event, such as death or incapacitation (block 216). For example, the distribution process may be triggered automatically once the user doesn't respond to a scheduled check-in confirming they are still alive and well. [Col. 10 Lines 10-20]The notifier may actively attempt to contact the testator through various means based on the testator's contact information stored in the system. Conventional and/or AI-based online public document searches may also be performed, as well as monitoring the testator's accounts, e.g., banking, social, etc., for any activity through any permissions granted to the system. If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830).)
-upon determining the account owner’s death, locking the account of the account owner; and(Foote [Col. 10 Lines 10-20]The notifier may actively attempt to contact the testator through various means based on the testator's contact information stored in the system. Conventional and/or AI-based online public document searches may also be performed, as well as monitoring the testator's accounts, e.g., banking, social, etc., for any activity through any permissions granted to the system. If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830). [Col. 9 Lines 50-57] In an embodiment, further external verification may be performed, for example, by the system administrator contacting beneficiaries and trusted contacts, for example, by email, messaging, or through the system (block 820). If there is a question about the veracity of the information and documents at this stage, further processing may be suspended (block 822) and an investigation initiated (block 824).) “Suspending the transfer of assets,” and “further processing may be suspended” are examples of locking the account of the account owner.
However, neither Foote nor Watt Lagnese teach or suggest:
-upon determining the account owner is listed in the death master file; and
Alternatively, Gujral teaches:
-upon determining the account owner is listed in the death master file; and (Gujral [0044] In addition to passively accepting data such as the passage of time or the arrival of a certain kind of document or message, under some embodiments of the method FIG. 1 the system can also monitor data on third-party sites to check for data matching the event pattern 128. For instance, if the event the system seeks to detect is the customer's death, the system could periodically check 128 the Social-Security Administration death master file. A listing of the customer's death on that file could be interpreted as matching the profile of a death event, triggering an attempt to contact another person or entity to confirm that death has occurred.) The “Social-Security Administration death master file” satisfies the limitation because it falls within the scope of government records containing names of recently deceased persons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by adding Gujral’s use of the death master file as a source to verify that the death has occurred. By substituting Foote’s use death determination technique’s with Gujral’s techniques one would have arrived at the predictable outcome of the claimed limitations at hand. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the social security death master file because it is a reliable way to legally verify the customer’s death. (Gujral [0044])
Regarding Claim 12:
The combination of Foote, Watt Lagnese, and Gujral teach or suggest The method of claim 11:
Furthermore, Foote teaches:
--upon the account owner not responding to the verification request within a predetermined timeframe, sending a notification to the personal representative. (Foote [Col. 10 Lines 10-24]The notifier may actively attempt to contact the testator through various means based on the testator's contact information stored in the system. Conventional and/or AI-based online public document searches may also be performed, as well as monitoring the testator's accounts, e.g., banking, social, etc., for any activity through any permissions granted to the system. If the system detects that the testator, or someone with the testator's credentials, tries to login to the system, or any other indication the testator is not in fact deceased during a certain grace period, the system will suspend the transfer of assets (block 830). If the notifier does not detect such an indication, the testator may be marked as “deceased” in the system (block 832) and the will executed and beneficiaries notified (block 834).)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foote et al. (US 11816749 B1) in view of Watt Lagnese et al. (US 10949937 B1) hereinafter Watt Lagnese, further in view Jason N. Statom (US 20170256011 A1) hereinafter Statom.
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese teaches The method of claim 1:
-wherein the client asset information is stored on the platform system database after the death of the account owner.(Foote [Col. 7 Lines 35-44] Individuals seeking to pass on crypto assets, such as cryptocurrency and NFTs, and other online assets should document a “digital legacy” to accurately describe important account details and store information about how to access the assets within these accounts. The user may have the ability to store sensitive information in the password vault, however if they are not comfortable doing so, the user would need to provide the location of where they stored the cold wallet and the location of where they maintain the key to share with an executor upon death.) Foote does teach that the client asset information is stored on the platform but does not specify a duration.
However, The combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese fails to teach:
- wherein the client asset information is stored on the platform system database for at least one year after the death of the account owner.
Alternatively, Statom discloses an after death method for delivering information to recipients which the user would like to address. Statom teaches:
- wherein the client information is stored on the platform system database for at least one year after the death of the account owner.(Statom [0034] STEP 6: Storing, by the customer prior to death, the most memorable video moments and ensure they get to the recipient of the customer's prior to death choosing, when the time is right. Storing on servers with the initial package is for ten years, with the option to increase in five year increments for an additional purchase. [0038] STEP 10: The initial length of time for the included package for the videos to be stored is ten years with the option to add additional lengths of time to be kept for an additional purchase in five year increments.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Foote by specifying a minimum duration in which the client information in stored, such as in Statom’s case where it is stored for 5 years. By combining these two references one would have arrived at the expected outcome of storing client asset information in Foote for at least 5 or 10 years as taught by Statom. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of enabling certain recipients to receive the video at a later time, such as children who would not have access to the information until adulthood. (Statom [0030] one's choosing at a future date or until verification of death, and then will be released to the recipient of choosing. The included package allows one to future date release of the videos up to 10 years in advance, with the option of adding additional 5 year increments up to a total of 20 years in the future, depending on the option the customer chooses. These videos will only be released at the designated time/date the customer chooses.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant asserts that the claims recite a specific technical solution for performing estate settlements that involves automated monitoring of the Death Master File published by the United States Social Security administration, automatic death determination by the platform provider, and providing read-only access to asset information to the personal representative. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the indication of a particular source of data, in this case the Death Master File, does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, particularly when the abstract idea falls squarely within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationship between people.” Furthermore, the determination of the death of a user, is not recited with enough specificity to be anything more than the abstract idea, because it fails to provide an improved technical solution to determining the death of a user. Finally, providing read-only access to a personal representative is no more than a rule-based or instruction based management of personal interactions, without any technical features tied to the enforcement of the rule. Therefore, while the claims may provide an improvement to “estate settlement process by automating death detection and enabling secure information transfer,” as alleged by the applicant, the claims still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the improvement is directed to the abstract idea as opposed to the additional elements. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the system “greatly alleviates errors, and the extra time required by personal representatives” are not persuasive, because this is merely an improvement to the abstract idea, as opposed to an improvement to a particular technological environment or technical field.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, the applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated rejection which is now a 103 obviousness rejection in view of Foote and Watt Lagnese. Regardless, the applicant’s argument Foote does not teach or disclose “determining, via the platform provider, a death of the account owner,” is not persuasive because it argues that the manner in which Foote determines the death is fundamentally different from requiring the “platform provider to actively make the death determination.” However, the claims do not necessarily restrict the platform provider’s involvement in determining the death, therefore, Foote satisfies the limitation when given the broadest reasonable interpretation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., automated platform-based death determination) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Foote’s failure to teach “read-only” access is remedied by Watt Lagnese’s suggestions, therefore, the applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments are not persuasive. Thus the claims remain rejected, however, under 103 over Foote in view of Watt Lagnese.
Regarding the applicant’s assertions over the rejections under 103 of claims 7-10, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they are based on Foote’s failure to teach the “read only access” amendments, whereas those limitations are now satisfied by the combination of Foote and Watt Lagnese. Therefore, all of the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as each and every limitation is taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Turek et al. (US 20170301048 A1) discloses a cloud-based estate management system which facilitates viewing permissions [0025], and automatically locks a user’s account upon determining a death [0031]. Additionally, the system accounts for “false-alarms” by checking the activity of a user.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICO L PADUA/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights